memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009
About: To accommodate the influx of discussion on the pending feature film, older discussions for this talk page can be found in the 2006, 2007, 2008 archives, and 2009 archives (pre-release). Post-release discussion * See: Forum:Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (post-release discussion) Removed from article In the "references to previous episodes and films", I've removed this: :*When Spock and Sarek talk in the transporter room, the number and letter on one of the doors is M-3110; the numbers add up to 5, possibly an indirect reference to the M-5 supercomputer. This seems like way too much of a reach to me. What do others think? —Josiah Rowe 04:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :I agree. I think that its just a coincidence IndyK1ng 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I'm removing this, too, on the same grounds: :* The opening battle sequence between the and the Narada features the intentional collision of a starship into an enemy vessel as well as the death of a crewmember as a result of being "blown out" of a starship and into space because of a hull breach and the resulting depressurization of the ship. Both are possible references to . Depressurization (demonstrated with a crewmember floating in space) and putting a starship on collision course seem to me to be fairly common "space battle" tropes. Since Abrams said that he hadn't even seen Nemesis, it seems unlikely to me that these would be intended as references to that film. —Josiah Rowe 17:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Admiral Archer's beagle Is there anything going to be put in about the reference to admiral archer and his dog. More than likely its supposed to be a reference to archer from enterprise seeing as this dog porthos was also a beagle :The film's writers have confirmed that this is a reference to Enterprise, but there's some dispute over whether the fact that it's a reference (out-of-universe) also means that the "Admiral Archer" mentioned is Jonathan Archer or not. At the moment, there is a page for "Admiral Archer" at Archer, and there's a note in the "Background" section of Jonathan Archer. There's some discussion about how to handle this at Talk:Jonathan Archer#Scotty and Archer's Beagle, Talk:Archer and Talk:Porthos#Admiral Archer's beagle. —Josiah Rowe 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) References to previous Star Trek episodes and films, and other media This entire section needs to be removed or reedited. Too many "might be", "may be" and other "possible" type references without incites. — Morder 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :That's not that unusual, but here's one everyone seems to have missed. 47 Klingon ships? Yeah. Graptor 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::Personally I think the outpost looked like a DHARMA Hatch.- JustPhil 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :*''When the Enterpise rises out of Titan, its similar to when the Enterprise arises from the Mutara Nebula ready to attack Khan.'' Unless specifically stated to be a reference all references should really be removed as they're too subjective. For instance the above one is a stretch, especially since it didn't arise from the nebula it just sunk below and came up from behind... — Morder 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :::Well, i think, it would be nice to make two sections. One as it is now and another for the specualtions. Because everyone will have another opinion, how something could be inspired by something etc. Speculations about references not only to episodes and films, coudl be in the second "subchapter" (like the names of shuttles: Gilliam and Moore). --Mvek 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) This site is not for opinions it's for facts that can be verified. So no, speculations are not allowed. — Morder 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) : Really? Then why have you not yet removed the "Memorable Quotes" section? The entire section is speculation and opinion. Unless of course you think you can find some sort of documented evidence that each of the quotes is in fact "memorable". Please get over yourself. Wikis, no matter how much work goes into them, are not encyclopedias. They're fan pages. 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Quotes and speculation are not the same thing. For the record, I've been one who would like see the Memorable Quotes section removed entirely but I'm not the only deciding factor in that. — Morder 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree that the section was a magnet for unfounded speculation, but I think that requiring a citation for every entry may be going too far. Do we really need a citation for noting that McCoy says "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" in and ? Similarly, what was the reasoning for removing Spock's Sherlock Holmes reference "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains — however improbable — must be the truth", which he attributed to "a human ancestor" in ? The note about the origins of the name "Nyota" for Uhura also seems worth keeping to me. —Josiah Rowe 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Without having a specific citation for the reference it will always be filled with someones thoughts as to what is a reference and thus too much speculation and not enough fact. With regards to your example of the phrase "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" it's just something he's said before. Not necessarily a reference...he's also said "I'm a doctor no a..." - doesn't mean it's a reference to every single episode...it's just the way his character is. Similar to the "if you eliminate..." - Oh and the Nyota note belongs on her page. — Morder 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::But isn't it noteworthy that the film contains dialogue that's reused from former Star Trek episodes and films? I'm not talking about everyday remarks like "hello" or "yes, sir", which could be repeated coincidentally — "Are you out of your Vulcan mind" is clearly deliberate. So is the Sherlock Holmes line. I don't see the advantage in quibbling over whether it's a reference to a specific episode or to the way the character is; either way, it's a reference. And it's noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) The problem is not whether that is the issue it's what makes your (not yours but the general your) reference any more valid that any other reference? — Morder 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Common sense. —Josiah Rowe 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, we have lots of that around here...it's easier to enforce rules when you have a standard common sense doesn't apply when people get emotional over their great contributions to this site..."how dare we remove one that doesn't meet someone else's idea of what a reference is". :) — Morder 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) How Time Travel Changed The Way Starfleet Makes Bridges So we all noticed the much more graphically-oriented bridge design. Technical readouts on the main screen instead of just camera shots, Scotty's eyepiece, Chekov's easy-to-read sensor HUD - it's wonderful! But why didn't they have those things in the "Prime" universe? Very simple. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the Prime Universe, no insane Romulan killship from the future emerged from a black hole randomly and destroyed a Federation ship only to disappear into the night for almost three decades. And when nothing happens... no one reacts! UNIVERSE PRIME: The designers of the USS Kelvin believed their design was suitable for the universe they were living in. It was not exactly costly to produce, and it completed all of its missions. More ships were commissioned based on this design, with simplicity of interface and an emphasis on scientific analysis at the core of its construction. The turreted guns put on the vessel were never used, so they were phased out of later models. Not until Captain Kirk encounters the Romulan Bird of Prey and the Klingon Cold War starts does Starfleet realize the military necessity of their vessels. However, even based on the Kelvin's design, Starfleet Operating Systems, targeting software, and phaser strength are all more than a match for their galactic neighbors at the time. UNIVERSE SECOND (or Abrams Universe): The designers of the USS Kelvin were sent back to the drawing board when their vessel was destroyed. Obviously the Federation's neighbors were more technologically advanced than previously believed, and the Romulans pose a greater threat than ever imagined. In reaction several new technologies are proposed by Starfleet Command: improved turreted phaser systems, graphical scan interfaces that require less training to operate due to the high propensity for Senior Officer mortality in battle, improved nacelle design to avoid collapse under key stress points, tactical readouts on the main screen through unified sensor grids, and in improved cooling system for the main plasma relays to avoid overheating when exerting more than %100 capacity. All of these sudden necessities redefined the way Starfleet thought about building ships. Now, when I saw the movie, I thought this was OBVIOUS. I mean, this is the point of the opening scene, no? To account for EVERYTHING that is different. And it does! Really! Just think about it! I don't think this is fan speculation. This is common sense! -- 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :I am glad this works for you. Do you think this also explains why the new movie is just a recycled Hollywood plastic hollow third-grade comic bookish piece of crap with no substance or soul to it whatsoever?—Eta Carinae 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::This page isn't a forum to discuss timeline changes or film quality (see and MA:NOT). Please keep comments to what should and shouldn't be placed on this page.--Tim Thomason 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :I understand and apologize. I am in the process of burying something that is very dear to me, and could not control my rage outburst very well after having watched the "movie". Fell free to delete this thread altogether; I won't take any offense. Best of luck with the rest of Memory Alpha.—Eta Carinae 19:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::I suggest that this thread indeed be deleted. It has nothing to do with improving the article. It's rather an essay about one part of the film and someone else's negative reaction to it. Perhaps we can move this somewhere else, but it shouldn't be taking up this much space on an article talkpage when it has nothing to do with the article in question. -FC 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::I reverted the blanking of the section since the proper way to remove this would be a formal move by an admin or a deletion of the original entries onto the talk page. Blanking it would actually be against established procedure, as far as I know. -FC 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I can't believe you're taking this so seriously, he made a minor comment about the film and you want to blank the page? This is what is wrong with wikis, you get a bunch of mindless people following the rules to the letter like it was handed down by Roddenberry himself. It is essentially a dictatorship. My two cents. Wheatleya 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) :::::This is a discussion page, no? Are we not allowed to discuss the movie? Because... that's silly. Even people who hated the movie (which most certainly does not include me) should be free to pop off their mouths here. It's not like we're doing it ON the main page. We're discussing random crap about the movie on the movie's discussion page. Calm down. Jeez. -- 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::It is a page to discuss the writing of the article - not "random crap", as you put it. There are community websites specialized on that - while we're specialized on writing an encyclopedia. -- Cid Highwind 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::: Friend, this is the internet. None of this matters that much. Chill out. Established procedure and specialists belong in the military, where it's a matter of life or death. This is a text page about a sci-fi movie. Besides, this isn't the encyclopedia portion of the website. We're just nerds kicking around ideas on the internets. -- 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Um, shouldn't we consider than history was already altered before all of this in First Contact? I mean, the Borg went back in time and so did the Enterprise E so it is certainly possible that technology from the future was already altering the timeline long "before" the events of the new movie. :: That depends. We can't be certain if the events of First Contact effected both universes. I also always took the events of First Contact, especially in light of the events of the Enterprise episode with the Borg, to be a sort of Gary Seven situation. You know, the people going back in time are products of their own interference in the time stream. Therefore the TOS episodes would have happened not just in spite of, but BECAUSE of the events of First Contact. -- 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Somehow you all missed Tim's post above. This conversation is over. Please do not post here anymore. Thanks. — Morder 21:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Removed comments I have removed the following speculative/uncited comments. Any that can be backed up with evidence can be put back. *During Spock's conversation with his mother on Vulcan, he mentions that feeling "fine" is not acceptable. This may be a reference to when the test asks Spock "How do you feel?" Spock is unable to provide an answer until the end of the film: "I feel fine." *As Kirk proceeds through the ''Kobayashi Maru'' scenario test, he is seen eating an apple, which may be a reference to the fact that he was eating an apple while recounting the story to Saavik in the Genesis cave below Regula in . *Chekov's difficulty in pronouncing the letter V through his accent ("Victor Victor") is an allusion to the scene in where he has difficulty pronouncing "nuclear vessels." * Spock's refusal to comment on Uhura's first name is likely a reference to the dubious canonicity of the name prior to the film's release. * Spock enabling Scotty to develop his transwarp beaming system is similar to when Scotty himself gave Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum in . * The destruction of Vulcan may reference the destruction of the Genesis planet in . In particular, the attempted transport of Spock, his parents, and the Vulcan council off of the planet (as the seismic disturbances tear the planet apart and the ground beneath the characters begins to collapse) resembles the transport of Kirk and Spock off of Genesis. In both cases the destruction of the planet is accompanied by the death of a beloved family member of one of the main characters (David Marcus and Amanda Grayson). * The Federation council's decision to give command of the Enterprise to Kirk because of his efforts to save Earth from destruction, despite his previous insubordination, at the finale of the film, strongly resembles the finale of . * Scotty's companion on the Delta Vega colony may have been a Kolaran: in the scene where he is introduced, he takes off his goggle in the same manner as a Kolaran does at the conclusion of the car chase in Star Trek Nemesis. * Leonard Nimoy's line "I am Spock" could be a reference to his second autobiography of the same name, as well as returning to the character after an 18 year gap.--31dot 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) More, plus reasons for removal: * When Bones pulls Kirk into shuttlecraft transport to the Enterprise, notice the name of shuttle craft next to the doors. It is Gilliam - this might be reference to script supervisor Dawn Gilliam. (not a reference to any past movie or show) * Nero yells "SPOCK!" twice after finding out Spock had stolen the Jellyfish, much in the same way Kirk exclaims "Khan!" twice in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. (opinion, and a stretch, to boot) * Chekov's reporting to Spock that there is an intruder resembles Chekov telling Admiral James T. Kirk there is an intruder ( ). (opinion, and a stretch) * Spock reveals that the Romulans share a common ancestry with the Vulcans. In the TOS episode , Spock (Prime) seems not to know of any connection; however, this difference could be due to Nero's prior appearance in 2233. In fact, it was stated in that episode that no one had ever seen a Romulan, even during the Earth-Romulan war a century previous. This greatly tied the hands of Enterprise writers to feature Romulans in an episode but not let them be seen. (more of a nitpick than pointing out a reference) * Captain Richard Robau's mention of shoring up the hull plating during the attack on the Kelvin may be an homage to Enterprise -- raising the shields in the 22nd century was performed by "polarizing hull plating." (I don't recall such a mention, although Robau did say "polarize the viewscreen", which may or may not have been a ref to Enterprise) * When Spock is called forward after being revealed as Kirk's accuser for cheating during the Kobayashi Maru test, he stands up and quickly tugs down the front of his jacket. This is a possible reference to the habit of Patrick Stewart to do the same after standing up from the captain's chair in TNG, often referred to by the cast as the Picard maneuver. (speculation) * Chekov's "televised" speech to the entire crew -- and scenes of the crew watching him on the screen -- are reminiscent of Sybok announcing his intentions on screen to the crew in The Final Frontier. (a stretch) * Spock's half-brother Sybok is not mentioned in this film, which may have been the producer's way of honoring / validating Gene Roddenberry's belief that the character of Sybok was apocryphal. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sybok (or maybe they just didn't write him in because it wasn't needed or couldn't fit him in; not a reference to a prior movie or TV show, anyway) --From Andoria with Love 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "...large Orange County hangar..." I have a feeling that the location referred to can only be one of two old blimp hangars aboard what was Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. knoodelhed 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :Yup, I think you're right. The El Toro Marine Corps Station in Irvine doesnt have a hangar (at least not one that can be used), so this must be the one. – Distantlycharmed 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Vulcan's sky is red, but in the movie it looks blue. What's up? :The sky is. :) Seriously, though, perhaps the atmospheric conditions on Vulcan vary enough that sometimes the sky is red and sometimes it's blue. Perhaps the ceremony in took place at sunset, or after a dust storm. (I know that we've seen red or reddish skies in other episodes and films, but you get the point.) —Josiah Rowe 06:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :Update: Roberto Orci says here (comments section, post #456) that Vulcan's red sky is seasonal. —Josiah Rowe 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Quality Given the "casual" nature of the film for its appeal to a general populace, i think we can expect to see more poor writing. WWhat i mean is that there was wording and slang that is unbecoming of an encyclopedia that i had to edit out. Just keep your eyes open and correct them. For instance, when it spoke of kirk saying he is going to study but instead meets the orion hthe writer opted to use language like sarcasm and words like "hooking up". :This site has a policy of inform and '''entertain'''. And "study" was the term used in the movie and has every place here. — Morder 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :You mean like inability to capitalize your words, lazy typos like "WWhat" and "hthe", and sentence fragments? Perhaps you're not the most qualified to complain of other contributors' writing ability. Deleted Scenes Since this section hasn't been expanded upon, I was wondering if I might add that two seconds of Nero on Rura Penthe shows up in the first theatrical trailer? I'll refrain from changing anything until I get a response. (Omega05 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)) :There is also a shot of Nero on Rura Penthe during Spock's mind meld. In fact, it's this shot right here. As for expanding deleted scene info, it would probably be best if you did so on this page. The movie's article should just include a list of the deleted scenes and a link to the delete scenes page for more info. --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Some of the deleted scenes will probably be released in the next year or so. I'd just table the issue for a while until more info becomes available. No hurry.--Hribar 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)